• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Schoolboys & National Championships 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
amirite

amirite

Chilla Wilson (44)
The honest to god truth is, it's hard at a high level for little fellas. They can all do the right things technically/tactically and still get beaten.

Now, the kicker is conditioning and good diet long term is a leveller but the Aus Schoolboys program is not in a position to provide that.

The good thing is they'll likely go into their local (or not so local) Super 20s program from here who WILL be in a position to provide that stuff (more time with players due in part to no school). Then, if they're good enough, they'll make Aus 20s.

This isn't the be all and end all of their rugby careers, and the selectors' decisions make some degree of sense.
 
formerflanker

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
amirite said:
This isn't the be all and end all of their rugby careers, and the selectors' decisions make some degree of sense.
Click to expand...

Who was the All Black whose father said "don't worry son, it's just one man's opinion" when the player wasn't selected for rep teams - then said the same thing when the son was first selected for the AB's?
 
The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
First phase said:
In reference to Honey Badger and Juan Barn post 789 and 790 it flabbergasts me that selectors are still relying on size when the pick these teams something which is happening at schoolboy waratah and wallaby level to some extents
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I don't support that selection policy.

No point in selecting giants (as U20's did and not giving them any game time - presumably because they are not quite to the standard required)

Size is a consideration, but the player who performs best in the position should get the selection, regardless of size.

If there is 2 similar players of similar speed and ability and 1 is 10 kg heavier, then they will probably go with size.

I certainly don't think size won over talent in the 2016 selections.

Not sure if there has been a conscious change to select for size in the 2017 selections.
 
SonnyDillWilliams

SonnyDillWilliams

Nev Cottrell (35)
Size doesn't matter?!

In terms of schoolboy rugby ... I only have one bit of evidence to submit:

1993 Joeys v $cots ... who do you think won..
 

Attachments

  • 1993.PNG
    1993.PNG
    158.6 KB · Views: 499
C

Chris9012

Frank Row (1)
SonnyDillWilliams said:
Size doesn't matter?!

In terms of schoolboy rugby . I only have one bit of evidence to submit:

1993 Joeys v $cots . who do you think won..
Click to expand...



Of course size plays a massive role in Rugby, I mean in younger ages size dominates most games until the opposition properly learns how to tackle. Although size isn't as important a factor in U18's (and onwards) as it is in those younger ages. I mean, this is obvious with ACT winning even though almost all opposition teams had at least 5 -10kg on their opposite NO.

However as with most coaches that take on these rep teams they will always view size as most crucial and IMO Langtry has done no different. Believing that if he has these boys, that he has selected through watching the club rugby (obviously not the tournament) then through his brilliant coaching they will be a team that could rival NZ.

Although I would focus on trying to beat ACT with NSW 1 containing 12 AUS rep players and being unable to beat any QLD side?!!? I'm sure the ACT coach would allow a trial game with AUS schoolboys Vs ACT, a game that would highlight how important size truly is.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
Interesting excerpt from Selection Dates and Process for 2017

4-Both of the Australian teams will be re-selected for the final games of the Tri Nations after the games on October 2nd.

Just a hunch - that the fullback from ACT gets a call up into the Schools team.
I'm still intrigued a fullback hasnt been named for that team, but 3 players still to be called up.
If there's a better fullback running around than was on display at Riverview, he must be good.
 
SOLE334

SOLE334

Jimmy Flynn (14)
The way the modern game is played with the rule changes has meant more versatility is better than just a specialist role. This is particularly true with the backs. The 10-15 at international level have chopped and changed often then any other time in the modern history of the game. Imo, this is an excellent practice given the nature of oppositions, for which certain players in different positions provide a better game plan execution for a coach. Thats why I believe they have left a 'specialist' fullback off the selected group. I wont be surprised if they go with someone totally different then the presumed ones who did a good job at Nationals.Im thinking someone taller, and can handle the highball in contact as well as a kind of a ball player who can pass at speed.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
SOLE334 said:
The way the modern game is played with the rule changes has meant more versatility is better than just a specialist role. This is particularly true with the backs. The 10-15 at international level have chopped and changed often then any other time in the modern history of the game. Imo, this is an excellent practice given the nature of oppositions, for which certain players in different positions provide a better game plan execution for a coach. Thats why I believe they have left a 'specialist' fullback off the selected group. I wont be surprised if they go with someone totally different then the presumed ones who did a good job at Nationals.Im thinking someone taller, and can handle the highball in contact as well as a kind of a ball player who can pass at speed.
Click to expand...

I agree; it's common for a 10 to be able to play 15 and vice versa; the two positions are closely related. However, even though most players can swap between the two roles, some are better suited to one position or the other, and are better value to their team in that specific position.

Selecting Woodcock as the fullback seems to be the logical conclusion regarding the selections, even though he's a recognised 10.
 
CatchnPass

CatchnPass

Vay Wilson (31)
In the abstract, 'size matters' is hard to argue with and Azzuri has rightly pointed out the Bob Dwyer view. But if you've had a tournament where the good little bloke has in fact beaten the big blokes consistently over 4 matches, then even Bob would seem to saying "select him".
 
Show and go

Show and go

Sydney Middleton (9)
sidelineview said:
I agree; it's common for a 10 to be able to play 15 and vice versa; the two positions are closely related. However, even though most players can swap between the two roles, some are better suited to one position or the other, and are better value to their team in that specific position.

Selecting Woodcock as the fullback seems to be the logical conclusion regarding the selections, even though he's a recognised 10.
Click to expand...


I think both these boys will be playing second fiddle when they add the extra players . As good as both are they might be fighting over fullback position rather than no10 position .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top